anti idpol is idpol. by dismissing gender, racial, or disability concerns, you start shaping the ideal proletariat to be straight white men. the fabled coal miner whose concerns are purely economical. yes idpol is used by opportunists, but those are exception. the rule is the vast majority of people simply don't understand or are even aware of socialism. if we're ever going to build a mass socialist party, it's gonna require reaching out to 'normies' who don't yet have a material analysis of their oppression.
anti idpol isn't a principled stance. it's a cop out used by people who were never going to organize to begin with. but instead of admitting to being lazy uninspired fucks, they instead point to some pink hair girl screaming on youtube as the reason why they don't think it's possible for the left to consolidate power. with this righteous indignation, the anti idpoler wastes their energy becoming culture warriors & shitposters whose only contributions are a million thread about incels.
I implore you to get rid of this infantile disorder and actually join your local organizers. PSL, SA, D$A (particularly the Refoundation caucus), IWW are all doing great work. D$A - SF just created and passed Prop F and now tenants have the right counsel, a civil right that hasn't existed in this country before.
The ideal proletarian imagined through workerism is not actually purely economically interested either: he is interested in maintaining his own personal-particular configuration within the broader world of (international) capital: him versus alll the non-ideal workerisms.
It is not that dismissal of standpoint epistemology leads to just the idealisation of such purely fantasised normals, but that it leads to a narrow analysis which does not see that within all broadly material standpoints of any other worker there lies the same emancipatory solution: the abolition of capital. All categories are intertwined and rely upon one another, hence the defeat of one over the other amounts to nothing but reformism. To refuse to understand to or choose to be blind to which historical processes have lead to a largely non-white precariat is to build a completely faulty and unfounded analysis. To think that the existence of ideology-crammed academic kids with painted hair is the barrier towards the (re!)establishment of a properly organised international proletarian movement is to think purely in terms of optics, and not to understand that the blows dealt to it are not and never will be personalisable.
Colton Long
...
Elijah Foster
Zig Forums anti-idpol =/= anti-idpol in general
Any politics on Zig Forums will inevitably be removed from real social life (because let's face it, this is 8ch), so the fact that anti-idpol here is incoherent and doesn't really establish an alternative to mainstream liberalism is an inevitable consequence of the platform.
So yeah, you're right - brocialism undermines struggle, but that doesn't warrant an abandonment of a critique of idpol. Just because we aren't liberals doesn't mean we should become conservative (as is the trend here), but neither should be just capitulate to liberalism. Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism, and the fundamental principle of Marxism is the self-determination of labor opposed to the interests of capital.
That said, the fight against sexism and racism is paramount, but intersectionality, by perceiving "oppressions" as to a certain extent seperate from each other means not having some edifice, some fundamental category to establish totality, to hold together all these (at a glance) disparate "oppressions". And that edifice is class and the struggle of the working class against capitalism.
Also, statistically, most of the global working class is neither white nor male, so emphasizing the role of the international working class reaffirms neither. The idea that working class politics is for "white males" comes from a distinctly American point of view, and is really just an extension of American cultural imperialism.
The origin of this dismissiveness towards the white working class, if we take an American perspective, is really just a mask for hatred of the working class. If you think a bourgeois black transwoman is more "oppressed" than a white worker, you're a reactionary.
You're playing word games. Anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, and anti-sexism have all been communist positions. Although your source seems to disagree: No one should fixate singularly upon anti-idpol, but it's an abstract condemnation of no one on the left in particular. It has the effect of pandering to the identity politics crowd, leading this board further in its slow decline toward pro-imperialism, identitarian red liberalism. We may as well focus on campus politics next.
Kayden Edwards
Anti-capitalism is the essential prerequired 'anti-' for communists upon which all other 'anti-'s depend. For example, to invoke Lenin, we are not for an opposition to just about any imperialism; it needs to be a struggle within which there is a genuine internationalist communist faction involved and for its victory over its bourgeois enemy to result in the establishment of or bolstering of a communist politics; communist politics that programmatically prove they are communist by being for, ultimately, the abgneation of all things particular to the capitalist mode of production, including but not limited to of course capital, wage labour, the State, bourgeois right, the national form, and so on: marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw3
Noah Russell
No, it's an attempt to keep a group from falling apart before it ever even started. Nothing will be accomplished if everyone's goals are split down arbitrary lines like "queer communism" vs "afro-cuban-texan communism" or whatever.
I don't have any problem with people attacking so-called "idpol", but the problem is they rarely actually attack it, they just dismiss it or say something about le tumblr or some random screeching feminist. This basically what Zig Forums does to Zig Forums. They don't attack the theories, they instead try to tie some ugly or cringy person to them so they don't have to address it.
Andrew Phillips
WHITE KHMER ROUGE NOW
Gavin Perry
So your saying that non-whites and women need “special treatment.” Isn’t thus discriminatory.
Not true
Most “normies” are white.
The reason I’m a socialist is because it’s in my self-intrest. These organizations don’t work in my self interest. SocDem Feminism that demands I give half my paycheck as reparations isn’t in my self interest.
SocDems who only want to nationalize “big business” and think all whites should give reparations to blacks for slavery. (Despite the fact that most whites are descended from German immigrants who weren’t even in America tell after the Civil War was over)
Litteral SocDems who are fine with Capitalism
I’m not joining a cop group
Ok this group is good.
Matthew Bennett
For god's sake, this what I'm talking about when just post random shit and don't attack the theory. Some random guy on twitter isn't a sage and the be-all-and-end-all of intersectionality. Why don't you just go and read what these terms mean: oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095652789 Cultural appropiation is generally neutral. It doesn't only apply to white people, and its not inherently or even implicitly bad.
Austin Thomas
Identity politics are bad because they split the proletariat along racial and gender lines. Instead of promoting solidarity and internationalism, identity politics supports division of working class movements. This crude tendency masquerading as liberation doesn't help anyone, it does not seek to unite people on the basis of their common humanity, rather it sections off people into racial and gender groups which seek to protect their own interests. How the hell are you going to get the workers of the world to unite with that kind of worldview?
If you didn't attach moral baggage to the word "discrimination" like a stupid fucking liberal, you'd realize that some discrimination is good. Most discrimination is neither good or bad. Everyone believes that whether consciously or unconsciously. No one wants to eliminate discrimination altogether. The real questions are what kinds of discrimination are acceptable and when are they acceptable. Try taking people you disagree with seriously instead of trying to dismiss them with gotcha one-liners.
Austin Thomas
Here’s a good form of Discrimination. Everyone who support discrimination can move to the Arctic.
Jace Roberts
Dude, you are confusing the definitions of discrimination. The definition he was using is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex". The definition you are using is "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". The first one is bad, the second one is neutral.
Carter Rivera
SO MUCH FOR THE BABOON LEFT
Josiah Nguyen
Here's my two cents. Black prole and white prole face different issues. Gay prole Asex prole same thing. The thing they all have in common is the fact they're all proles.
So the idea is to be anti-idpol in the sense that you're against idpol being the spearhead idea. Instead, it is lumped under the "freeing the proletariat from oppression" part of socialist struggle. It's not that idpol isn't there more so that it doesn't have the spotlight because A. Giving it the spotlight causes splits down stupid lines and B. Because it simply doesn't have as much of an effect as capitalism as a whole has. Focusing just on idpol isn't attacking capitalism as a whole, or even really touching the roots of it.
Focusing on idpol is cutting the branches off the capitalist tree unlike us "anti-idpol" socialists who seek to uproot the entire fucking tree.
